tenpoundsofcheese:gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: gblive: tyrajam: Wolf_Blitzer: Tatsuma: He also texted a picture of himself holding a gun, asked another one to help him buy one, and proclaimed himself to be a gangsta. That's way above and beyond ITG

What in the fark are you talking about? Nobody cares that Martin had pics of a gun on his phone, it is the text messages on his phone where he is trying to illegally buy a pistol that are being considered. Talk about pathetic!

If you read some other articles... the pistol in the picture on Trayvon's phone is believed to be stolen.

How did Zimmerman know about the picture?

Martin may have shown it to Zimmerman before the altercation started.You don't know either way.

WTF does it matter. You are missing the point again.

The point is that you are grasping at straws. How could the picture of a gun that you mention give Zimmerman a reason to shoot the kid?

You are missing the point of this thread.The defense is looking to introduce things that will raise a reasonable doubt in the jury.

One of the primary reasons that Zimmerman will avoid conviction is because the over-zealous state prosecutor charged with him with murder and is unwilling to consider lesser charges. A more appropriate charge would be manslaughter in this case; murder is obviously an 'over-charging'. If you asked me at this point if the state would be able to assemble a reasonable jury that would convict Zimmerman of manslaughter - I would tell you the probability is about 20% IMO (but this is not the charge the state is pursuing).

As more information comes out about this case, it is becoming more & more likely that the state will not be able to find a jury willing to convict Zimmerman on any charges beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state had any common sense, they would drop the case - but they won't due to the media coverage.

Neither party is an angel in this case, but the defense can easily make a case at this point that Trayvon was an individual prone to drug use, criminal activity, and violence - and likely assaulted George Zimmerman the night of the encounter.

ZeroCorpse:I just find it to be a funny coincidence-- and surely, it's just a coincidence-- that all the people defending Zimmerman also happen to be the same most-likely white macho-type guys who frequent gun threads babbling about Obama takin' their guns and how the MSM doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

Just a funny coincidence. Surely, the cracker gun nuts aren't also racists?!?!

Mighty broad brush your painting. While I do own guns I do not back the NRA. I even voted for Obama twice. I just think this is simple self defense. Should not have become a national story

ZeroCorpse:I just find it to be a funny coincidence-- and surely, it's just a coincidence-- that all the people defending Zimmerman also happen to be the same most-likely white macho-type guys who frequent gun threads babbling about Obama takin' their guns and how the MSM doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

Just a funny coincidence. Surely, the cracker gun nuts aren't also racists?!?!

Are most racists in the habit of defending Hispanics and attacking black... or something?

Mid_mo_mad_man:ZeroCorpse: I just find it to be a funny coincidence-- and surely, it's just a coincidence-- that all the people defending Zimmerman also happen to be the same most-likely white macho-type guys who frequent gun threads babbling about Obama takin' their guns and how the MSM doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

Just a funny coincidence. Surely, the cracker gun nuts aren't also racists?!?!

Mighty broad brush your painting. While I do own guns I do not back the NRA. I even voted for Obama twice. I just think this is simple self defense. Should not have become a national story

gblive:One of the primary reasons that Zimmerman will avoid conviction is because the over-zealous state prosecutor charged with him with murder and is unwilling to consider lesser charges. A more appropriate charge would be manslaughter in this case; murder is obviously an 'over-charging'. If you asked me at this point if the state would be able to assemble a reasonable jury that would convict Zimmerman of manslaughter - I would tell you the probability is about 20% IMO (but this is not the charge the state is pursuing).

Florida also did the same thing with Casey Anthony. Over charging lost them the case.

That's not a safe assumption here. Yes, many of them are racist, but many of them are just utter douchebags living out their macho gunplay fantasies vicariously through this story.

A Terrible Human:1. That's what I farking remember from an article when all this bullshiat started. Sorry for remembering wrong? Though it seems to have made you very angry.

He wasn't ordered to stay in the car, he was informed, as is SOP, to not engage or follow Martin.

That's kind of the lynchpin in all this. The dickweed stalked the kid around the development for being black which is, apparently, what triggered the altercation in the first place. The scum believe that this isn't a problem, the normal people acknowledge that if you follow someone around for a few miles they might get a little suspicious and you might trigger an incident.

The funny thing is that the tough guys backing Zimmerman are the same idiots who will go all ITG about how if somebody messes with or offends them in any way that a beat down will ensue.

/ but nobody ever accused a person like OnlyM3 of being honest or very bright

Facebook exchange from June 2011 between Martin and a character called "Mackenzie DumbRyte Baksh:

MARTIN: unow a connect for codine?MACKENZIE: why nubianMARTIN: to make some moreMACKENZIE: u tawkin bout the pill codeineMARTIN: no the liquid its meds. I had it b4MACKENZIE: hell naw u could just use some robitussin nd soda to make some fire ass leanMARTIN: codine is a higher dose of dxmMACKENZIE: I feel u but need a prescription to get it

ZeroCorpse:I just find it to be a funny coincidence-- and surely, it's just a coincidence-- that all the people defending Zimmerman also happen to be the same most-likely white macho-type guys who frequent gun threads babbling about Obama takin' their guns and how the MSM doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

Just a funny coincidence. Surely, the cracker gun nuts aren't also racists?!?!

Alonjar:gblive: One of the primary reasons that Zimmerman will avoid conviction is because the over-zealous state prosecutor charged with him with murder and is unwilling to consider lesser charges. A more appropriate charge would be manslaughter in this case; murder is obviously an 'over-charging'. If you asked me at this point if the state would be able to assemble a reasonable jury that would convict Zimmerman of manslaughter - I would tell you the probability is about 20% IMO (but this is not the charge the state is pursuing).

Florida also did the same thing with Casey Anthony. Over charging lost them the case.

In the Casey Anthony case the prosecution was one of the least effective that I have ever seen. They seemed to be trying to make a case that Casey Anthony was a bad mother therefore she was a criminal. The prosecution needed to focus on the evidence in the case which they failed to do.

AirForceVet:I think the Zimmerman defense team should have gone for a plea deal.

If some strange man came up to me when I was 17 in the middle of a Florida night and demanded why I was in my neighborhood, I'd have told him to fark off. If he touched me, I'd have kicked his ass too.

The only time something like that happened to me as a teen in Florida, the strange man had a wool cap over his head with eye holes cut into it, holding what appeared to be a small calibar semi-automatic handgun. I just lost $3 that night to the asshat. Called the cops but they couldn't find him, even with a K-9.

/Maybe Zimmerman should have had his gun out.//Martin would have seen the reall threat that was hidden until too late.

I'm not as badass like most of you here.. for me it depends on how the question is worded. 17 or 37, if some guy came up and introduced himself and ask semi politely in a non threatening manner asked me those questions then I have zero issue complying. I wouldn't go full retard and full kung fu fighting the minute I see him.

Tatsuma:Walter Paisley: Back to the topic at hand, how would Martin's intent of taking codeine or his fondness for pot translate into violent tendencies? How is experimenting with drugs out of the norm for a teenager? Zimmerman's defense seems to be more based upon playing up fears in which drug users and young black males are demonized.

I was just correcting what he was saying. It's not the drug use, it's the picture of him with a gun, his claims of beating a snitch and being a gangsta, his having stolen property in his locker, his texts about buying a gun, it's really about all of these things.

Well if you also have many texts sent to strangers about beating up people, doing drugs and being a gangsta, don't get into an assault without witnesses around or you'll be farked if the other guy is not an idiot and doesn't have incriminating stuff lying around to show him to be a violent shiathead.

Okay, I think I have a better idea of where you're coming from now. Thank you for clarifying.

I still think that the character profile Zimmerman's defense is trying to portray is still a bit cloudy, at least in the context in which they're trying to portray it. An item of confusion could be multiple interpretations of the language used in Martin's texts. The term "gangsta," if interpreted as slang, could simply be a display of machismo. As for taking pictures of guns and sharing them with friends, is that all that out of the ordinary for a teenage male? Again, this could just be a desire to display "manly" activities and interests to other young males attempting to find a masculine identity (I admit that I could also be lacking contextual information. If links with evidence showing otherwise exist, they would be appreciated.). Would the gun photos be interpreted differently if these people were white? The "beating a snitch" seemed to refer to getting into a fight with a former friend he felt had betrayed him. Even if he's using gangsta rap slang, this doesn't necessarily mean this is part of some criminal culture instead of a personal feud. As for the stolen property, he could very well be a thief but that doesn't necessarily mean he has the tendencies of a violent criminal. Drug use? Isn't that a bit extreme and just a general demonization of drug users (and pot and codeine at that!) to suggest that they are assumed to start a fight simply because of their lifestyle? Especially when they are not under the influence at the time? That seems too close to a temperance movement argument for my comfort.

Even if we don't question the defense's profile of Martin, the situation is still cloudy. Questionable character doesn't mean that someone can't be the victim of a crime. Violent criminals can be victims of violence. I don't doubt that Zimmerman may have feared for his life, but that still isn't all that great of a defense. His being jumpy seems to be what started the whole thing and this might be a better case for why he shouldn't possess a firearm than a defense of his actions. Even if his version of the events are to be believed (that Martin threw the first blow), couldn't the "fear for one's life" defense also be used to explain Martin's alleged behavior? If an armed stranger appears to be stalking you, couldn't both fight and flight be understandable responses?

Mid_mo_mad_man:ZeroCorpse: I just find it to be a funny coincidence-- and surely, it's just a coincidence-- that all the people defending Zimmerman also happen to be the same most-likely white macho-type guys who frequent gun threads babbling about Obama takin' their guns and how the MSM doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

Just a funny coincidence. Surely, the cracker gun nuts aren't also racists?!?!

Mighty broad brush your painting. While I do own guns I do not back the NRA. I even voted for Obama twice. I just think this is simple self defense. Should not have become a national story

After reading your posts in this thread and many others, you...YOU are going to use the broad brush defense? Wow.

Mid_mo_mad_man:Wolf_Blitzer: Mid_mo_mad_man: Well we do know he backtracked to find Zimmerman. A scared boy doesn't do that. He wanted revenge.

We know nothing of the sort. The only things that are confirmed by the evidence are that Zimmerman was following Martin, that he lost sight of him, and that some time later a violent confrontation occurred. Beyond that, we have only Zimmerman's word that he wasn't continuing to pursue Martin, and his account is suspect for obvious reasons.

The injuries to Zimmerman indicate he was attacked from behind. So one of two things happened. One Zimmerman was walking away after confronting the thug and was attacked. Or he was ambushed by the boy. Either way the punk got what was coming to him.

Or he shot the kid, realized it was going to look bad, and bashed himself a couple times to sell his story. I've known people who did that. Heck, I seem to remember a certain young woman who carved a letter in her cheek to implicate an imaginary Black liberal attacker.

...Or maybe Zimmerman pulled the gun and the kid jumped him to avoid being shot, and Zimmerman got turned around in the course of grappling with Martin before finally popping the kid at close range.

Or maybe you weren't there or know WTF really happened, and should probably not claim anything happened in any definite way, because you're not privy to the details of the case in the same way the police, jury, and involved parties were.

Mid_mo_mad_man:The injuries to Zimmerman indicate he was attacked from behind. So one of two things happened. One Zimmerman was walking away after confronting the thug and was attacked. Or he was ambushed by the boy. Either way the punk got what was coming to him.

Well then Quincy - you'd be so kind as to provide citations to prove this bullsh*t you pulled out your ass?

Funny, considering that Zimmerman never mentioned being ambushed, and since Martin had him on his back (as he claimed), either Zimmerman flipped like a piece of buttered toast before he hit the ground, or Martin turned him over while assaulting him.

Yes Zimmerman may have the moral obligation and legal right to confront Martin but in doing so Mr Amateur Night made things more complicated than it really should. This is why we have professionals to deal with this type of situations and Zimmerman is clearly does not have the training or the experience to deal with it. Yes the 911 dispatchers are not LOE but Zimmerman ignored sound advice and common sense and now we have a dead person as a result. One more thing, if you check all of the neighborhood watch committee guide books it'll clearly state you should not confront the perp and you should stay where you are, call the proper authority and watch. BTW neighborhood watch is not law enforcement.

ChaosStar:When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

So Trayvon tracked back around to go start a fight with Zimmerman... while carrying a bag of Skittles and an Arizona brand drink? That doesn't make sense. Logic says if Trayvon had tracked back around to start a fight, he would have set down his drink and his Skittles before going. But the drink and the Skittles were found in close proximity to his body. He was carrying them when Zimmerman started the fight, and dropped them so he could defend himself.

"But there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight."

Wrong. Let's break this down.

Evidence From Which We May Infer Zimmerman Started the Fight:

1) Zimmerman had at least two motives to start a fight. Specifically, his anger at Trayvon, and revenge for the break-ins in his neighborhood. Both derived from Zimmerman's baseless belief that Trayon had participated in break-ins in his neighborhood.

2) Zimmerman's demeanor proves he was angry. Specifically, his use of expletives to describe Trayvon. Grunting "these assholes always get away," "these farking pcoonks" on a known recorded line with police showed sufficiently strong anger to overcome Zimmerman's sense of decorum. Zimmerman's tone of voice when Trayvon tried to escape the confrontation altogether confirms the inference. Zimmerman was mad. And he was mad at Trayvon.

3) We know Zimmerman believed Trayvon was a criminal, and responsible for the break-ins in his neighborhood. When he said "these assholes always get away," there was no other plausible referent for "these assholes" than those responsible for the break-ins. Zimmerman said at the outset that recent break ins-in his neighborhood motivated him to call the police on Trayvon. Zimmerman was thinking of two things when he said "these assholes always get away." Break-ins, and Trayvon Martin. By "these assholes," Zimmerman meant, among others, Trayvon Martin.

4) Zimmerman proved his commitment to confrontation first when he chased Trayvon against Neighborhood Watch protocol. He proved it again when he decided to get out of his vehicle against police advice. He wanted an encounter with Trayvon, and got it.

Note: Trayvon's disregard for the dispatcher's instructions proves his state of mind; he wasn't obliged to obey the dispatcher. But that he didn't demonstrates his commitment to confrontation. He so wanted a confrontation that he disregarded Neighborhood Watch protocol, police advice, and common sense to get one.

5) George Zimmerman knew he could handle a physical confrontation, because he was lethally armed.

Let's weight that against evidence Martin started the fight.

1) Trayvon may have tracked back around after initially seeking to escape the confrontation. But if he did so, we know his purpose wasn't to fight, because he was still carrying his Skittles and Arizona drink. Logic says if he had intended to start a fight, he would have set them down before tracking back. So if Trayvon did turn around, he did so most likely to observe the creepy, angry, cursing suspicious character invading his neighborhood, not start a fight with him.

2) Trayvon had THC in his blood serum. But the tests didn't show when he had smoked marijuana or if he was high at the time Zimmerman confronted him. Moreover, everyone with a lick of experience knows marijuana decreases aggression, not increases it. Thus, the proposition Trayvon was high on marijuana hurts Zimmerman's case rather than helps it.

3) Zimmerman's statements. But Zimmerman isn't a reliable witness. We know that because his pattern of prevarication since the shooting. And, btw, if we prove one lie, that not only further disqualifies Zimmerman's statements, it adds weight to the inference Zimmerman started the fight because it shows consciousness of wrongdoing.

4) Trayvon was a hoodlum with a history of violence. But so is Zimmerman. In fact, Zimmerman has a history of violence against police officers, and he committed his violence as an adult rather than as a juvenile. Hence, if Zimmerman's partisans want to assassinate the dead boy's character, the reality is that Zimmerman is the one with the greater demonstrated character for violence. The "character for violence" argument again undermines Zimmerman's defense, rather than supports it.

That's it. That's the entire case conservatives have put forth for the proposition that Trayvon started the fight. He might have tracked back around, he might have been stoned, and he was troubled. But their principle arguments undermine Zimmerman's case rather than support it.

Now, let's consider a few factors which Undermine the Inference Trayvon started the fight:

1) Trayvon sought to avoid confrontation altogether. We know this because Zimmerman admitted it on the phone.

2) Trayvon was either afraid of Zimmerman, or nonplussed by him. In the version of events Zimmerman gave over the phone, Trayvon fled from him. Because Trayvon was acting lawfully, not in possession of any contraband, we know he wasn't afraid of being caught in any criminal act. Which means Trayvon probably ran because Zimmerman menaced him in some way.

Zimmerman prevaricated on this issue. He later said Trayvon didn't flee, but had rather merrily skipped away. Either way, Zimmerman's own words undermine his own case. If Trayvon was afraid of Zimmerman, he wouldn't have wanted to fight. If Trayvon was nonplussed by Zimmerman, he had no motive to fight. So again, Zimmerman's defense undermines his own case rather than supports it.

3) Trayvon was completely unarmed. He had no special reason to believe he could handle a fight, and no belief he might end up in one. This in contrast to Zimmerman.

4) Trayvon had no motivation to start a fight. None. Any motivation Zimmerman's partisans submit is based entirely on speculation, not on evidence. This in contrast to Zimmerman's motives, which we may infer directly from his own statements on the night of the murder.

All of this adds up to Zimmerman started the fight beyond a reasonable doubt. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "to a moral certainty." It just means that if any cause you have to doubt isn't easily dispatched by logical consideration of the facts. Here, logical examination of the facts easily dispatches all plausible grounds to believe Zimmerman didn't start the fight.

thenumber5:then the police let his body sit in the morgue for 3 days as a "Jhon Doe"(note his was a John doe who was carrying ID and cellphone) ,until his mother filled a missing persons

Is this true? I don't remember that. Serious question.

The police in this area have a vested intrest in supporting zimmermans side of the story, being they commented a ton of documented wrong doing in the handling of this case before it came to attention of the general public

This, however, I do remember. There wasn't even a police report filed until the media started asking questions.

Molavian:ZeroCorpse: I just find it to be a funny coincidence-- and surely, it's just a coincidence-- that all the people defending Zimmerman also happen to be the same most-likely white macho-type guys who frequent gun threads babbling about Obama takin' their guns and how the MSM doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

Just a funny coincidence. Surely, the cracker gun nuts aren't also racists?!?!

We don't loathe being straight white men, either.

Good for you. I'm glad you don't loathe yourself. It probably makes it easier when you realize so many other people do it for you.

tyrajam:gimmegimme: tyrajam: Yawn. Your trolling has lost its entertainment value. Nobody believes that after your head is split open you should wait for more serious damage to occur before you defend yourself.

And no one believes that if your head is "split open" that a Band-Aid will suffice.

Wow. I even provided you the link and you still won't read what actually happened. Hint: there are pictures in the link. Google Zimmerman injuries images and tell me more about how his head was not split. You can lead a horse to water...

So, if his head was "split open," why didn't George Zimmerman: Mall Cop Wannabe seek appropriate medical attention? If the attack was as vicious as the 9beers fan club likes to claim, the EMTs would have insisted on taking him to the hospital and getting him at least a CT scan. (it looks bad if someone you went on a call for and released died the next day from a brain hemorrhage.)

All the pictures I've seen equate to cuts, scrapes, and a busted nose, consistent with anyone who was popped in the face and knocked on their back onto the driveway.

Farkage:gimmegimme: tyrajam: Yawn. Your trolling has lost its entertainment value. Nobody believes that after your head is split open you should wait for more serious damage to occur before you defend yourself.

And no one believes that if your head is "split open" that a Band-Aid will suffice.

The one big thing I've learned from your rather "interesting" comments is anyone should feel totally safe attacking you, since even if they jump on you and slam your hear into the sidewalk you apparently feel it's impolite to pull a weapon to defend yourself.

and...is it possible that the gun went off during that fight? or was it established that Zimmerman pulled the gun, took aim and fired?

Alonjar:gblive: One of the primary reasons that Zimmerman will avoid conviction is because the over-zealous state prosecutor charged with him with murder and is unwilling to consider lesser charges. A more appropriate charge would be manslaughter in this case; murder is obviously an 'over-charging'. If you asked me at this point if the state would be able to assemble a reasonable jury that would convict Zimmerman of manslaughter - I would tell you the probability is about 20% IMO (but this is not the charge the state is pursuing).

Florida also did the same thing with Casey Anthony. Over charging lost them the case.

And you can thank people like Nancy Grace for that. From day one, Nancy Grace and her ilk were speaking as if the trial were just a formality. The idea that the she wouldn't be convicted of first-degree murder didn't even occur to them, and this is why (I suspect) the prosecutor felt pressured to go after an unattainable charge. The fact that they couldn't even conclusively prove cause of death should have been their first inkling that they were in trouble. It was groupthink, through and through.

As for Zimmerman, I agree that the charge should be manslaughter. His actions are the reason Martin is dead. If he'd stayed in the car, none of this would have happened. However, since it can be argued that at the moment he killed Martin he was defending himself, if the only options are a murder conviction and acquittal, then it's probably going to be acquittal.

That being said, even if he walks out of the courtroom a free man, there's still the civil trial, and I consider the odds very good that he will be found civilly liable for Martin's death. If his legal team has any brains, they'll try to settle. (Assuming he has any money left after the criminal trial.)

Mid_mo_mad_man:So if I don't think every black man is a victim I'm racist? That's racist in it's self. Btw how come we racist are defending the Latino ?

Because it's obvious that some folks think there are different levels of "bad races" and they have an order. If a white man Stands His Ground and kills a Latino, the racists will side with the white guy. If a Latino kills a Black guy, the racists will side with the Latino. If a Black guy kills a Native American, the racists will ignore the whole thing and go watch a Jeff Dunham video.

tenpoundsofcheese:Farkage: gimmegimme: tyrajam: Yawn. Your trolling has lost its entertainment value. Nobody believes that after your head is split open you should wait for more serious damage to occur before you defend yourself.

And no one believes that if your head is "split open" that a Band-Aid will suffice.

The one big thing I've learned from your rather "interesting" comments is anyone should feel totally safe attacking you, since even if they jump on you and slam your hear into the sidewalk you apparently feel it's impolite to pull a weapon to defend yourself.

and...is it possible that the gun went off during that fight? or was it established that Zimmerman pulled the gun, took aim and fired?

Anything is possible except if he was shot from a distance as opposed to point blank range there would be different signs, such as powder burns on Martin. None of us were there. With that said, most of what gimmegimme has said is misleading. Like, for example "he was ordered to stay in the car". He wasn't. Period. He was allowed to follow him by law. While stupid, classifying it as an "armed pursuit" is laughably inflammatory.The police weren't going to press charges until the public flipped out thanks to the inflammatory crap the media displayed, and the police LOVE arresting bad guys. That says a lot.This shouldn't have been national news to begin with.

gblive:In the Casey Anthony case the prosecution was one of the least effective that I have ever seen. They seemed to be trying to make a case that Casey Anthony was a bad mother therefore she was a criminal. The prosecution needed to focus on the evidence in the case which they failed to do.

They didn't have much actual evidence. There was no definitive cause of death, for one. Since the prosecution couldn't even prove that the child was murdered, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony murdered her child was pretty much impossible. Their only hope was to make the jury not like her, but the jury made the right call and based their decision on the evidence, not whether Anthony was a scumbag.

Now, I'm not saying Casey Anthony didn't murder her child, I'm just saying that from a legal standpoint, the jury did make the right call. People shouldn't be convicted solely because they suck as human beings or because not everyone likes them (far too many innocent people have been convicted for those reasons.) The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case, there was plenty of reasonable doubt. At least for a first-degree murder charge. The jury did the right thing. If Anthony is guilty, it's the prosecution, not the jury, who is to blame.

bugontherug:ChaosStar: When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

So Trayvon tracked back around to go start a fight with Zimmerman... while carrying a bag of Skittles and an Arizona brand drink? That doesn't make sense. Logic says if Trayvon had tracked back around to start a fight, he would have set down his drink and his Skittles before going. But the drink and the Skittles were found in close proximity to his body. He was carrying them when Zimmerman started the fight, and dropped them so he could defend himself.

"But there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight."

Wrong. Let's break this down.

Evidence From Which We May Infer Zimmerman Started the Fight:

1) Zimmerman had at least two motives to start a fight. Specifically, his anger at Trayvon, and revenge for the break-ins in his neighborhood. Both derived from Zimmerman's baseless belief that Trayon had participated in break-ins in his neighborhood.

2) Zimmerman's demeanor proves he was angry. Specifically, his use of expletives to describe Trayvon. Grunting "these assholes always get away," "these farking pcoonks" on a known recorded line with police showed sufficiently strong anger to overcome Zimmerman's sense of decorum. Zimmerman's tone of voice when Trayvon tried to escape the confrontation altogether confirms the inference. Zimmerman was mad. And he was mad at Trayvon.

3) We know Zimmerman believed Trayvon was a criminal, and responsible for the break-ins in his neighborhood. When he said "these assholes always get away," there was no other plausible referent for "these assholes" than those responsible for the break-ins. Zimmerman said at the outset that recent brea ...

Nice. But does require a longer attention span than the average Farker's.

soporific:gblive: In the Casey Anthony case the prosecution was one of the least effective that I have ever seen. They seemed to be trying to make a case that Casey Anthony was a bad mother therefore she was a criminal. The prosecution needed to focus on the evidence in the case which they failed to do.

They didn't have much actual evidence. There was no definitive cause of death, for one. Since the prosecution couldn't even prove that the child was murdered, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony murdered her child was pretty much impossible. Their only hope was to make the jury not like her, but the jury made the right call and based their decision on the evidence, not whether Anthony was a scumbag.

Now, I'm not saying Casey Anthony didn't murder her child, I'm just saying that from a legal standpoint, the jury did make the right call. People shouldn't be convicted solely because they suck as human beings or because not everyone likes them (far too many innocent people have been convicted for those reasons.) The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case, there was plenty of reasonable doubt. At least for a first-degree murder charge. The jury did the right thing. If Anthony is guilty, it's the prosecution, not the jury, who is to blame.

Goldstien Sachs:I'm sorry, if someone approaches me with a gun, I don't try to kick his ass. I lay down, ask him to call the police, and sort it out.

I don't know what level of ignorance it requires to actively fight someone with a firearm, but this kid was surely under it.

Someone holding a gun at me comes within arms reach, I'm going to try to take him out. Why? You never draw a firearm without intending to use it. At least that is the rule that every gun owner I have known has told me. Never aim it at another person without the intent to kill them. Because if you don't intend to kill them, you might do so accidentally. Thus, even in dealing with responsible gun owners, I know that if they aim a gun at me, they will be shooting me. Only irresponsible gun owners would draw without intending to kill me.

Someone pulls a gun on me, I figure I am a walking dead man anyway. If he or she is stupid enough to get within arms reach before killing me, at least I have a fighting chance if I can knock the gun so it isn't pointed at me. One guy I knew took 16 rounds from an AR-17 and lived after charging someone who had just killed the cashier of the store he was working at. I asked him why he charged like that and he said "Army training." Others I've talked to said the same thing. The idiots who shot up the store had stolen the gun from a local dealer several weeks prior and had already been caught on camera chasing down and killing the manager of another retail store in town before taking the register.

That is my reality. Someone pulls a gun on me, that means it is kill or be killed. One has to assume there is no middle ground.

bugontherug:But if he did so, we know his purpose wasn't to fight, because he was still carrying his Skittles and Arizona drink. Logic says if he had intended to start a fight, he would have set them down before tracking back. So if Trayvon did turn around, he did so most likely to observe the creepy, angry, cursing suspicious character invading his neighborhood, not start a fight with him.

This is actually pretty crushing to the claim Trayvon backtracked so he could start a fight.

GF named my left testicle thundercles:gimmegimme: GF named my left testicle thundercles: If you have more loyalty to your race than you do to truth and justice then you are part of the problem.

Isn't it sick? These people are gleeful over the death of a 17-year-old kid.

[files.abovetopsecret.com image 520x673]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x749]

i dont know the facts. but it is possible that he deserved it by attacking zimmerman. i dont know if that is the case. everyone should chill out. allow the facts to be presented in a reasonable manner in court. that is all i have to say.

Well, we left THAT possibility behind about ten minutes after Martin was shot, with everyone 110% sure that either Zimmerman is a cold-blooded murderer or Martin was a stone killer out to beat him to death.

Oh Hai Guys. Is this the thread where Fark Liberals(TM) conveniently forget that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that a plausible alternative theory of the crime constitutes the type of reasonable doubt that is supposed to result in an exoneration?

ZeroCorpse:Mid_mo_mad_man: So if I don't think every black man is a victim I'm racist? That's racist in it's self. Btw how come we racist are defending the Latino ?

Because it's obvious that some folks think there are different levels of "bad races" and they have an order. If a white man Stands His Ground and kills a Latino, the racists will side with the white guy. If a Latino kills a Black guy, the racists will side with the Latino. If a Black guy kills a Native American, the racists will ignore the whole thing and go watch a Jeff Dunham video.

How rampant is black on American Indian violence? I could see it happening among the civilized nations but little else were.

ginkor:MARTIN: unow a connect for codine?MACKENZIE: why nubianMARTIN: to make some moreMACKENZIE: u tawkin bout the pill codeineMARTIN: no the liquid its meds. I had it b4MACKENZIE: hell naw u could just use some robitussin nd soda to make some fire ass leanMARTIN: codine is a higher dose of dxmMACKENZIE: I feel u but need a prescription to get it

Ah, silly kids! Codeine and the lower plateaus of DXM may have some similar effects, but they are very different drugs. Also, this distinction is important because combining opiates and dissociatives, while an incredible euphoric high, can also be quite dangerous if you don't know how to be careful, especially when the opiate dosage is fairly high (dissociatives tend to alter one's opiate tolerance and this can increase the risk of OD and potential negative side effects such as respiratory depression).

tirob:ChaosStar: I wasn't trying to dive to far into that though, as I find it pretty clear Zimmerman was attacked.It's pretty clear that the pavement was used, as there was really no other means for Zimmerman getting those wounds to the back of his head.

---

1. Neither of us knows how the fight started, or why. When you say that you find it clear that Z was attacked, I sense that you are relying on evidence (Z's statements) that I for one would take with a grain of salt. There is no eyewitness that I know of who can corroborate a single one of Z's assertions on this point.

2. I'll buy the idea that Zimmerman's head injuries were caused by the pavement, but I have no way of knowing whether Martin pounded Zimmerman's head into the pavement. I am unaware of any eyewitness who reported seeing this, Zimmerman himself excepted.

3. Neither of us knows whether Zimmerman pulled his gun because Martin was pounding his head into the pavement, or because he reasonably feared for his life, or for some other reason. We'll find out, perhaps, at Zimmerman's trial. Until then, I think that all we're doing is conjecturing.

1. I can make an educated guess that Zimmerman didn't start the fight, having listened to the Zimmerman phone call, his tone and breathing say he wasn't chasing Martin merely following and gave up when prompted to. As Martin had no injuries on him save the entry wound and a scratch on his finger I find it safe to say that Zimmerman wasn't the attacker. You've said already he has a history of violence, so then if he started the fight why was there no injury on Martin? I think Zimmerman would have at least left a bruise somewhere.

2. He didn't have to to be just bashing his head into the concrete. Witnesses say they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman throwing punches "MMA style" whatever that means. Zimmerman's head could have been hitting the concrete with every blow, and that would be a significant amount of force delivered in rapid, sharp, snaps.

3. Well I can't really see him pulling the gun prior to his head hitting the concrete, as I don't think he would have the wounds then? I'm trying to think of any other reason he would pull his gun while being attacked other than thinking his life was in danger but I can't come up with anything plausible.

You're right, we don't know what happened, but putting everything together can paint a decent picture /if/ you use only facts and not the mismatch of stories that went around.